UK air quality in the spotlight once again

Last week saw the publication of the government’s draft plan to improve air quality by reducing nitrogen dioxide levels across the UK.

The government is turning to local authorities to ‘develop new and creative solutions to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, while avoiding undue impact on the motorist’, which won’t lead to any kind of quick fix given that diesel vehicles are in the firing line of this consultation.

In a joint statement from Defra and DoT, the government says it is consulting on a range of measures that could be taken to mitigate the impact of action to improve air quality.

In the draft UK Air Quality Plan for Tacking Nitrogen Dioxide, Defra and DoT concede that the introduction of stricter vehicle emissions regulations (Euro standards) has not delivered the expected reduction in emissions of NOx from diesel vehicles and that road transport is still by far the largest contributor to NOx pollution in the local areas where the UK is exceeding limit values. In what has become an annual occurrence, London breached its pollution limits within the first week of the year, prompting widespread calls for tougher measures to be enacted.

‘However, road transport is a key part of almost everything that we do as individuals or businesses with social and economic impacts which are much wider than air quality,’ the report states. ‘This means setting new policies and incentives to promote new technology and innovation, speeding up the move to cleaner vehicles and supporting the industrial strategy to deliver cleaner air for UK towns and cities.’

Consequently, local authorities will now be charged with implementing so-called ‘Clean Air Zones’ within the shortest possible time. At the national level, a raft of measures have already been announced that include funding to encourage the roll-out of hydrogen vehicles and supporting infrastructure, and increase funding to encourage the uptake of electric taxis, with taxi drivers being offered £7,500 off the cost of a new low-GHG vehicle by way of an incentive. This is also being considered for drivers of older diesel vehicles.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of SMMT welcomed the proposals for improving air quality across Britain, plus the exemption of new Euro 6 diesels from any penalty charges.

“Industry is committed to improving air quality across our towns and cities and has spent billions developing new low emission cars, vans, trucks and buses and getting these new cleaner vehicles onto our roads quickly is part of the solution,” he said. “As outlined in the plan, any proposed scrappage scheme would need to be targeted and deliver clear environmental benefits. We’re encouraged that plans to improve traffic flow and congestion, as well as increase uptake of electric and hybrid vehicles, will be prioritised in towns and cities. We look forward to working with government to encourage the uptake of the latest, low emission vehicles, regardless of fuel type.”

Prof Jonathan Grigg, Professor of Paediatric Respiratory and Environmental Medicine, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), said: “Since this proposed plan has been developed to ‘avoid undue impact on the motorist’, it is not surprising that the ambitious option of removing the current toxic diesel fleet from all UK roads by 2025 is not a key component.

“Given that previous initiatives that have not directly targeted diesel emissions have failed dismally in the past, I am not confident that these proposed local interventions, however innovative, will achieve a step reduction in exposure of vulnerable populations, such as young children.”

Diesel cars aren’t totally responsible for all NOx emissions covered in the consultation but a new testing regime in Britain is seeking to ensure that NOx tests on new vehicles are at least accurate. Under Real Driving Emissions (RDE) tests from September 2017, vehicle manufacturers will be required to ensure that real-world NOx emissions for new models are increasingly aligned with lab-testing limits

RDE (package 3) and Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) both feature on the agenda at IMechE’s Real Driving Emissions: Adapting to Changing Regulation. Taking place at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole on May 23, the event will discuss the technical challenges facing engineers in meeting emissions targets, plus the role that emissions testing procedures play in this. According to IMechE, issues surrounding the standardisation of equipment and procedure, as well as best practice in developing reports from the data, will also be addressed.

1. Its not just the NO2 from diesels that is the issue its the sheer size of the UK population, which is really the issue, especially when concentrated in London and other cities. But of course stating the obvious is pretty pointless!

2. How about looking at ways of removing the NO2 and other pollutants from the atmosphere.
Perhaps a device to collect emissions directly at the exhaust or a cleaner diesel fuel?

The idea of scrapping millions of diesel cars and other vehicles before their time is not exactly green, there is still a lot to be said for diesel, global warming hasn’t gone away (and the reason for promotion of diesel) – just need to improve it.

Brian,
If you look at the records of global temperatures over the past 19 years it is clear global warming has indeed gone away. There is even severe doubt among the scientific community, it ever existed as a result of mans’ best or worst efforts in the first place. The hypothesis as proposed by Mr Gore, Dr Mann and a few others, is coming under proper scientific analysis, at last.
We must, do all we can to reduce pollution that I agree with, as do all rational individuals.

The good news in all of this is that the government have not been panicked into draconian measures by the strong lobby for such action.

Air is getting cleaner all the time and pollutant reduction is a continuous improvement issue. The fear tactics are a matter of concern as they always lead to over-reaction irrespective of costs / benefits. The demonization of diesel is now well underway even though most of the pollution is caused by lack of decent public transport in UK cities (north of the Watford Gap of course). A significant portion of the pollution in London is brought in from the continent and gives a base line that is not in our control anyway.

We need The Engineer to maintain a balanced approach to this important public health issue.

I have only once been present in the Supreme Court as a visitor (and at no other time, nor for any other reason!): I happened to be at a Hearing about two years ago -(HMG (*) being sued by Friends of the Earth or somesuch) for NOT even having, let alone implementing, a policy about traffic related pollution. Several factors interested me.
(1) the Judges appeared to have grasped the brief and key points that were at issue much quicker and better than the QC (as it happened a female) who was representing the Government (ie us?)
(2) The good old ‘hardy annual’ (and a complete lack of understanding from all the lawyers present – I counted well over 40! I kid you not-presumably all paid for by us) about their misuse/ interchangeability of the words heat, temperature, energy, and so on.
In fact I did, after asking if such would be proper, address a letter to the Court: and received a most gracious reply. The President did study Chemistry ‘first’ and clearly had knowledge and the scientific method at his disposal. Not sure about the others. though.
How much more valuable to the administration of the State if the whole matter had been considered by the appropriate ‘technology’ based “Institution”: then perhaps it would be already in ‘play’ not tyhe subject of yet more wordy sermonising.

Will the diesel limits also apply to rail? The rail sector routinely trumpets its green credentials but has lagged behind in terms of cleaning up its act and matching the progress made by the automotive sector. I enquired of the London Mayor whether his aspirations would include rail. As yet no response.
The UK rail sector (DfT, NetworkRail) now seems hell bent on limiting electrification with ominous comments about hybrid trains being used to achieve the same benefits as full scale electrification. This is nonsense. Both parties have made an expensive mess of electrifying the GW main line which has led them to the belief some cheap lash up involving diesels will work as well. If diesel/hybrid (forget batteries) options are now under threat then the whole scenario is a complete mess.

However, road transport is a key part of almost everything that we do as individuals or businesses with social and economic impacts which are much wider than air quality

Can I be reading this right? The government is saying that air quality and by direct inverse association, the health of the population, must be treated as less important than the social and economic impacts (presumably they meant ‘benefits’) of road transport.

Not a word about modal shift to halt the inexorable rise of car use? Electric buses anyone?

Apologies for the oversight. I should’ve made it clear that we’re dealing with oxides of nitrogen, including primary NO2 and nitric oxide (NO), the latter reacting in the atmosphere to produce secondary NO2.

This might be to simple. For many years it has been important to have an inlet air filter. It is also important to filter the fuel.
So how about a low pressure exhaust filter. Maybe the inlet would come in and a perforated baffle would even the flow out in a disposable fibrous filter. It might need changing often, but if it was simple !! Maybe get the Dyson engineers to take a look.

As I was once told, in former times, the streets of all major cities were clogged with the effluent of the horses which ‘pulled’ most transport. Indeed the entire Lea Valley (which I gather heads North Eastish out of London) was the place where this valuable material was taken: to be used to encourage the growing of food! Perhaps we simply need to either return to a horse based transport system, or find a cure for/use diesel effluent?

I am still trying to work out why HMG (you know, those baffoons who work for us (or so they tell us every 5 minutes when they want our vote in the ‘con’ trick they are ghoing to play yet, yet, yet again in a few weeks)-at least those of the Right, what political dimension there is in NOT having a policy and acting upon it: until a Court tells them to have one?

I hope you are not suggesting we return to a time when things worked, 1saveenenergy, that is frowned on these days don’t you know. The next thing you will asking for is for the post to be delivered before breakfast, and to have your bins emptied once a week.

Same old solutions, public transport etc. Where I live it takes 1.5 hours to get to the local hospital by bus, 15 mins by car. We all do not work, nor could ever work in the same town so consequently inter town journeys, mostly not accessable by public transport, again mean the car. In all, too many people crowded onto one little island, inadequate road means that all road transport, including buses, lorries and cars are all crammed into too little road space, slowly crawling forward with pollution everywhere.

Road Transport is a key driver (no pun intended) of modern society. We cannot live or operate without it. It is reasonable to have controls over emmissions but they need to be proportionate and relevant. While diesel cars have proliferated and with modern petrol engines could readily be returned to, the use of diesel in medium and large commercial vehicles will have to remain. Therefore some sort of differentiation has to be put in place. Additionally as the problem is only as such in the densely populated places like large conurbations a single national scheme would be wholly inappropriate and recognition of those who live and work in low population densities is paramount.

Behind all this is one pertinent fact: consumers can only buy what manufacturers produce and governments allow. So as well as reducing our diesel and general fossil fuel dependency if there was accelerated implementation of hydrogen and or electric infrastructure that mirrors or replicates the existing fossil fuel system then that would facilitate a change of technology. This would be a more effective and beneficial long term use of public money than propping up the banking system. On a cynical note (as if my previous sentence wasn’t enough) electricity has to be generated and if that is supplied by fossil fuel all we are doing is transferring where pollution is created and with the Government cutting investment in CCS what is to be gained? At least there is research into solar powered hydrogen plants with the potential to eliminate fossil fuel usage completely. Then we could use fossils to create more permanent and resuable objects instead of putting the stuff back into the air after a single use.

The problem can be easily solved, in 1969 when I invented the Ettridge orbital engine: http://www.ettridgeorbitalengine.com the Nitrogen dioxide and the opening of the ozone hole over the poles was an issue, people raised the issue of air pollution, it was a big issue then, Diesel motors should be banned. Then came the oil shortage, and the focus moved to the cost of oil, petrol and Diesel, and what gave the best mileage for your money. The focus moved away from air pollution, and on to cost and the need to keep the transport system working. Back then they kicked the can down the road, but I would hope that this time they will seriously address the problem. I invented the Wet Sump Two-Stroke Engine, that gave low air pollution and fuel savings, but the manufacturers were not interested. They will not change until forced to meet a standard that is legislated and even then, as we have seen with VW, they will sooner cheat than try and meet the standard. The electric car, vehicles and transport is the only way to go, providing the electricity comes from renewable energy sources. It may be that the diesel motors need to be replaced with a suitable electric motor, I would suggest another of my inventions, the Gemini Electric Motor & Generator : http://www.geminielectricmotor.com either as an in hub motor or main motor.

“At least there is research into solar powered hydrogen plants with the potential to eliminate fossil fuel usage completely”.
Fossil fuels that themselves were ‘created’ by the past contribution of the sun! I remind myself that the amount of energy from ‘our’ sun which actually reaches us (and indeed has done so since the BB) is one/two billionth of its output. Now here is some lateral thinking, of which I hope even Edward de Bono would be proud.

Recently our illustrious journal gave details of the space-junk (debris from the many thousands of satellites and their ‘rockets’ that ‘we’ have positioned in a ‘band’ around our planet. Suggestions as to how to harness these (to remove them?) because they were/are a threat to new ‘missions’ were requested. NOW: How’s about stretching a series of vast aluminised shiny ‘fabric’ mirrors between these spots in space: mirrors which might capture some more of the energy which ‘bypasses’ us! and direct it towards us. Practical -certainly not? But I believe the thinking -to use what is first conceived as a problem as the basis for a solution- is sound.

Overall military budget(s) across the world? -trillions- : needs of the poorer elements of mankind to gain access to inexpensive energy from what is presently absolutely wasted, by utilising the space rubbish (mostly military?) already in place… substantial. Likelihood? Well if Kyoto et al can at least get 95% of all governments on board…just a hope.

Mike’s idea is actually not far away from one proposed by physicist and Manhattan Project veteran Freeman Dyson, although his concept was even more grandiose, involving surrounding the sun itself with photovoltaic collectors!